LIFE OF CHRIST
A Harmony of the Gospels

LESSON  TWENTY THREE

THE  PASSION  WEEK
THE  ARREST
DURING  THE NIGHT  BEFORE  HE  WAS  CRUCIFIED

We offer here the probable succession and time of day from now until the death of  Jesus on the cross.
The time of day is according to Westcott.

Judas came

More than two hours had passed since from the lighted chamber he had plunged into the night,  and those hours had been very fully occupied.  He had gone to the High Priests and Pharisees,  agitating them and hurrying them on with his own passionate precipitancy and partly perhaps out of genuine terror of  Him with whom he had to deal.

Detachment of  troops and officers

The Troops  (speiran) - The Romans
Properly the  "band"  or  "cohort"  of  Roman soldiers from the Antonia.
It was probably,  not the entire cohort (600 men) - but the captain and the guards on duty.

The Officers (uperetas) - The Jews
The temple police sent from the Sanhedrin.

The Synoptists (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) speak of the entire body as (ochlos) a multitude, or "rabble."
And both Matthew and Mark mentions the Band (speira) later in the narrative (Mt. 27:27;  Mk. 15:16).

Kissed Him

It was a common custom to greet someone with a kiss on either or both cheeks.
However,  this was more than the ordinary greeting.
The word used here is a compound verb that has the force of an emphatic, ostentatious salute.
Meyer says,  "Embraced and kissed."

The same word is used of  the tender caressing of:

The suggested order of events during the arrest

More than twelve legions

A legion was a division of  the Roman army amounting to more than 6,000 men.
The number "twelve" was mentioned,  perhaps,  in reference to the number of  his apostles and himself.
Judas being away,  but eleven disciples remained.
God could guard him,  and each disciple,  with a legion of  angels: that is,  God could easily protect him,  if he should pray to him,  and if it was his will.
(from Barnes' Notes, Electronic Database. Copyright (c) 1997 by Biblesoft)
 

A certain young man

Only Mark relates the incident.
There is no definite means of knowing who the youth may have been.
Conjecture has named Mark himself,  John,  James the Just,  Lazarus (brother of Mary and Martha),  and some have even suggested Saul of Tarsus!
The most reasonable,  however,  seems to be Mark.
The mention of  the linen cloth suggests that he had, on hearing some sudden report,  rose out of bed and rushed out in his nightshirt, or casting a loose sheet about him,  hurried out of the house.  It is not reasonable to suppose that any of the disciples, or Lazarus from over a mile away had ventured out in that condition.

THE  PASSION  WEEK
 THE  TRIAL

If we treat the Gospels as we should treat any other authentic documents recording all that the authors felt themselves commissioned to record,  of the crowded incidents in one terrible and tumultuous day and night,  we shall,  with care and study,  see how all that they tell us falls accurately into its proper position in the general narrative, and shows:

Reading the Gospels side by side,  we soon perceive that of  the three successive trials He underwent at the hands of  the Jews, we find:

There is nothing strange in this, since

Each of the three might,  from a different point of view,  have been regarded as the most fatal and important of the three.

To Annas first

It is true that this Hanan,  son of Seth,  the Ananus of  Josephus,  and the Annas of the Gospels,  had only been the actual High Priest for seven years (A.D. 7-14),  and that,  more than twenty years before this period,  the Procurator Valerius Gratus had deposed him.  He had been succeeded first by Ismael Ben Phabi,  then by his son Eleazar,  then by his son-in-law,  Joseph Caiaphas.

It is probable that Herod the Great had originally summoned him and his family from Alexandria,  as supple supporters of  a distasteful tyranny.  The Jewish historian calls this Hanan the happiest man of  his time,  because he died at an advanced old age,  and because both he and five of  his sons in succession - not to mention his son-in-law - had enjoyed the shadow of  the High Priesthood;  so that,  in fact,  for nearly half a century he had practically wielded the sacerdotal power in Jerusalem.

In spite of  his prosperity he seems to have left behind him but an evil name,  and we know enough of his character,  even from the most unsuspected sources,  to recognize in him nothing better than an astute,  tyrannous,  worldly Sadducee,  invulnerable for all his 70 years,  full of a serpentine malice and meanness which utterly belied the meaning of his name  (clement or merciful)  and engaged at this very moment in a dark,  disorderly conspiracy,  for which even a worse man would have had cause to blush.

It is most remarkable that,  although the Pharisees undoubtedly were actuated by a burning hatred against Jesus,  and were even so eager for His death as to be willing to co-operate with the aristocratic and priestly Sadducees - yet,  from the moment that the plot for His arrest and condemnation had been matured,  the Pharisees took so little part in it that their name is not once directly mentioned in any event connected with the arrest,  the trial,  the derisions,  and the crucifixion.  The Pharisees,  as such,  disappear;  the chief priests and elders take their place. 
It is,  indeed,  doubtful whether any of the more distinguished Pharisees were members of the degraded  "simulacrum"  of  authority that in those bad days still arrogated to itself the title of  a Sanhedrin.  If we may believe not a few of  the indications of  the Talmud,  that Sanhedrin was little better than a close,  irreligious,  unpatriotic confederacy of  monopolizing and time-serving priests  (the Boethusism, the Kamhits, the Phabis,  the family of Hanan,  mostly of  non-Palestinian origin)  who were supported by the government,  but detested by the people,  and of whom this bad conspirator was the very life and soul.

Simon Peter followed Jesus

This is included in the section: Peter's Denial of Christ

The high priest . . . asked Jesus

Annas is apparently meant.

This was not a trial,  for the Sanhedrin had not been assembled;  rather it was a hearing to get evidence to submit to that body when it was convened a few hours later.

The inquiry touched Jesus' disciples and doctrine.  It is not clear that Annas had in mind to prosecute the disciples. More likely he hoped to get a confession that these men were being prepared for revolutionary activity.  Jesus ignored the matter.  So far as his teaching was concerned,  he denied having given secret instruction that might be construed as plotting against the authorities.  He had taught openly,  in public places such as the synagogue and temple.  His teaching was not subversive.

Why do you ask me?

Jesus implied that the procedure was illegal.
There were no witnesses.
He was being made to implicate himself by his testimony.

One of the attending officers  (others were in the courtyard)  thought the answer impudent and struck Jesus to make him more docile in his attitude toward the high priest.  When Christ pointed out the injustice involved,  neither the officer nor Annas could make a defense of the procedure.  There was nothing to do but to send the captive to Caiaphas.
(from The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, Electronic Database. Copyright (c) 1962 by Moody Press)

Caiaphas,  like his father-in-law Annas, was a Sadducee - equally astute and unscrupulous with Annas,  but endowed with less force of character and will.

They lead Him away

With him were assembled

In his house were all the chief priests, the elders and the scribes.

It is clear that the priests were forced to change their tactics.
Instead of trying,  as Annas had done,  to overawe and entangle Jesus with insidious questions,  and so to involve Him in a charge of secret apostasy,  they now tried to brand Him with the crime of  public error.

But Peter followed Him

This is included in the next section: Peter's Denial of Christ

But their testimonies did not agree

From their debasing themselves to  "seek"  witness against Him,  we are led to infer that these were bribed to bear false witness.  But even in this they failed.

On the only charge they had, observe:

Not only did their well-laid plans for arrest go astray,  but also so did their well-laid plans for accusation.

It is as you have said

According to Mark,  Jesus said,  "I AM"  (with the emphatic 'ego eimi').
The rest of His answer divides into two parts:

Swete also says:
"...The words of  Jesus are also a solemn warning that His position and that of His judges would one day be reversed,  and they were a final but ineffectual summons to repentance and faith."

Revelation 20:12
I saw the dead, great and small, standing before God;  and The Books were opened,  including the Book of  Life. And the dead were judged according to the things written in The Books,  each according to the deeds he had done. (TLB)

Jesus had not yet officially been declared guilty,  and yet the soldiers were permitted to mock Him and abuse Him.

The reasons for Peter's failure here are many.
We offer 4 suggestions:

As you watch Peter, you see him gradually moving into the place of temptation and sin;  and his actions parallel the description in Psalm 1:1

Psalm 1:1
Blessed is the man
Who walks not in the counsel of the ungodly,
Nor stands in the path of sinners,
Nor sits in the seat of the scornful.     (NKJV)
(from The Bible Exposition Commentary. Copyright (c) 1989 by SP Publications, Inc. All rights reserved.)

The  "court"  of  the house is in the open space around which the house is built.
The outside of  the building shows to the observer hardly anything but blank walls.
The courts are sometimes laid out in beautiful gardens containing various fruits and flowers;  and some of the better homes have two or three courts - some have even been known to have seven courts in one house.
The rooms of the house open into the court.  In some houses this opening is by means of doors;  but in others the rooms are divided from the court by a low partition only.

Peter was in the court of  the palace,  around which the house itself was built,  but yet outside of the rooms.
In this open court a fire was made,  and here Peter was warming himself.
The rooms were elevated above the court,  with steps leading to them,  and separated by a railing and pillars.

Thus Peter was

Another disciple

We do not know who the unnamed disciple was.
Some say it may have been Nicodemus or Joseph of Arimathea, because they were in a position to have known the high priest.
Others say it was the disciple John, because throughout his gospel, he never refers to himself  by his own name.
Wycliffe suggests he was known to the high priest through his mother and her family.

Regardless of  who it was, he was not only known to the high priest, but to Peter and Jesus as well.  In Peter's defense, let us note that although this other disciple is not recorded as denying Jesus, neither did he speak up in defense of  his Lord any more than Peter did.

It is not probable that any danger resulted from its being known that he was a follower of  Jesus,  or that any harm was intended on them for this.  The questions asked Peter were not asked by those in authority,  and his apprehensions which led to his denial were groundless.
(from Barnes' Notes, Electronic Database. Copyright (c) 1997 by Biblesoft)

The  "gateway"  is the passageway from the street to the court.
It is sometimes arched,  and its floor usually inclines from the direction of the street.
A door opens from it into the court;  but this door is so arranged that it is not directly opposite to the gate which opens to the street.  Thus, though both should be open at the same time,  no one in passing through the street would be able to look into the court.  This was the place to which Peter retreated.

He denied with an oath

hórkou

Oath

An  "oath"  was an appeal to God to witness the truth of  a statement or of  the binding character of  a promise. Oaths played a very important part not only in legal and state affairs,  but also in the dealings of every day life.

A number of  formulas were used in taking an oath,  such as  "the Lord be between thee and me forever," and ''as the Lord lives"  (which could very possibly be what Peter said).

In ordinary cases the raising of the hand toward heaven was part of the oath.

So we can supposed that it went something like this:

His  "speech"  betrayed him because the Galileans had a more Syrian cast in their dialect than did the Judeans.
The Galileans had a corrupt pronunciation,  frequently interchanging certain letters;  and so blending or dividing words as to render them unintelligible,  or cause them to convey a contrary sense.

He began to curse

katathematízein

To invoke evil on

To  "curse"  signifies to wish curses on himself.
Peter thus declares himself subject to the divine curse if he is not telling the truth when he disclaims all acquaintance with Jesus.

The word for curse here is  "anathematizo,"  the same used by Paul in Galatians 1:8,9  when he calls the divine curse down upon those who preached a different gospel than the true one.

And swear

omnúein

To take (or declare on) oath

To "swear"  was similar to the  "oath,"  but a little stronger.
He probably swore "by the name of God" - or calling God to witness - that what he said was true. "

Some have supposed there to be a difficulty in what the Synoptists portrays Peter's denials to have been in the court of  the house of Caiaphas,  while John portrays the denials to have been in the court of the house of Annas.
The seeming difficulty dissolves when we realize that Annas shared the Palace with Caiaphas,  and although Jesus was taken first to Annas,  and then to  "the house of Caiaphas" - Peter was all the while in the same court.

We see here his sad decline

We also see that:

THE  PASSION  WEEK
THE  MORNING  OF  THE  SIXTH  DAY
THE  DAY  OF  CRUCIFIXION

At last the miserable lingering hours were over,  and the gray dawn shuddered,  and the morning blushed upon that memorable day.

They had begun this counsel the preceding evening.
But as it  was contrary to all forms of law to proceed against a person's life by night,  they came together at the break of day,  pretending to conduct the business according to the forms of law.

Luke reports 2 questions asked by the Sanhedrin

This was the climax of the religious trial, and the key issue was,  "Is Jesus of Nazareth the Christ of God?"
They were sure His claims were false and that He was guilty of blasphemy, and the penalty for blasphemy was death  (Lev 24:10-16).

Jesus called Himself   "Son of man,"  a messianic title found in Daniel 7:13-14.
He also claimed to have the right to sit  "on the right hand of the power of God",  a clear reference to Psalm 110:1, another messianic passage.
It was also this verse that He quoted earlier that week in His debate with the religious leaders (Luke 20:41-44).
(from The Bible Exposition Commentary. Copyright (c) 1989 by SP Publications, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Psalm 110:1
The LORD said to my Lord,
"Sit at My right hand,
Till I make Your enemies Your footstool."      (NKJV)

Seeing that He had been condemned

Doubtless through all those hours Judas had been a secure spectator of  all that had occurred,  and when the morning dawned upon that chilly night,  and he knew the decision of the Priests and of the Sanhedrin,  and saw that Jesus was now given over for crucifixion to the Roman Governor,  then he began fully to realize all that he had done.

Perhaps he had expected that,  while he got the bribe,  the Lord would miraculously escape,  as He had three times before.

Perhaps also Judas had thought that,  in the light of the past few days' events,  and the fact that Jesus had recently been more explicitly saying that He was the Messiah.  That he could force Jesus,  in the face of the soldiers and the threat of death,  to once and for all proclaim Himself King of the Jews - the expected Messiah here to stay.

What a shock it was to Judas when he saw that not only was Jesus not going to set up His physical kingdom,  but also He was actually going to allow Himself  to be taken and killed.

Was remorseful

The word for  "remorseful," also translated  "repented"  is from "metamelomai" - to regret;  to have deep remorse at the consequence of the sin rather than a deep regret at the cause of it.
It is never used of genuine repentance to God.

It is not lawful

Putting blood money into the treasury was unlawful but shedding that same betrayed and innocent blood was justified in their own hypocritical eyes.

Thus Satan often deludes many by a false tenderness of  conscience in things indifferent;  while envy,  strife,  and all manner of wickedness give them no manner of  trouble or disturbance of conscience.

Bought the potter's field

In such cases the Jewish law provided that the money was to be restored to the donor;  and if he insisted on giving it,  that he should be induced to spend it for something for the public good.
This explains the apparent discrepancy between Matthew's account and that in Acts 1:18.
The money was still considered to be Judas',  and to have been applied by him to the purchase of the potter's field.

Lest they should be defiled

One of the most ironic observations in all of  Scripture is made by the apostle John.
The Jewish leaders plotted to kill an innocent man, condemned him  in 2 illegal trials by night, and paid false witnesses to bring untrue charges against Him.
But now, in order to avoid ceremonial uncleanness, they would not enter the Roman Praetorium!

How true were the words of Jesus in Matthew 23:23-26

Pilate

"Suffered under Pontius Pilate" - so,  in every creed of Christendom,  is the unhappy name of the Roman Procurator handed down to eternal execration.
Yet the object of  introducing that name was not to point a moral,  but to fix an epoch.
In point of  fact,  of all the civil and ecclesiastical rulers before whom Jesus was brought to judgment,  Pilate was the least guilty of malice and hatred.
He was the most anxious,  if not to spare His agony,  at least to save His life.

What manner of  man was this in whose hands were placed,  by power from above,  the final destinies of  the Savior's life?  Of his origin,  and of his antecedents before A.D. 26,  when he became the 6th Procurator of Judea, little is known.

The Judgment Hall

The "Praetorium" - the house where Pilate and his troops were lodged.
It was so named from being the dwelling-place of the "praetor,"  or chief of the province.
It was also the place where he held his court.

At Jerusalem Pilate occupied one of the two gorgeous palaces that had been erected there by the lavish architectural extravagance of the first Herod.  It was situated in the Upper City to the southwest of  the Temple Hill, and like the similar building at Caesarea,  having passed from the use of the provincial king to that of the Roman governor,  was called Herod's Praetorium.

It was one of those luxurious abodes,  "surpassing all description,"  which were in accordance with the tendencies of  the age,  and of which Josephus dwells with ecstasies of admiration.

In that kingly palace - such as in His days of  freedom Jesus had never trod - began,  in three distinct acts,  the
fourth stage of  that agitating scene which preceded the final agonies of Christ.

This last trial is full of  passion and movement - it involves:

What accusation do you bring against this man?

Pilate looked down from his dais.
Jesus was stationed directly in front of the tribunal,  with members of the Sanhedrin flanking him on both sides. Ranging off  to Pilate's right were the familiar faces of Annas,  Caiaphas,  Ananias,  Zadok,  Helcias,  Eleazar,  and Johathan.   He guessed they would constitute the chief accusers if,  as they thought unlikely,  it came to a formal trial.  Beyond the semicircle of these principals  (including an array of the leading Pharisees,  Sadducees,  Scribes,  elders,  and the temple guard),  ranged the vast and growing mass of spectators.

But only one face in this rising lake of  humanity intrigued Pilate.
He scrutinized the figure immediately in front of  him and was a trifle disappointed.  In the past months he had heard so many reports about the mysterious powers of  Jesus that the man was becoming larger than life in his imagination,  and yet here he was,  bound,  unkempt,  evidently powerless.

By this time the crowd had hushed to hear the governor's first statement.
Turning to the chief priests on his right,  he asked in common Hellenistic Greek,  "What charge do you bring against this man?"   The Jewish leaders were thunderstruck,  for this was the opening formula of  a Roman trial,  the "interrogatio."  They had expected only a license to kill,  and to kill,  not by a Jewish method,  but by one that they regarded as more horrible and accursed.  But Pilate was not going to endorse the action of the Sanhedrin;  instead,  he was reopening the case and beginning his own judicial hearing!

"If  he were not a criminal,  we would not have brought him before you,"  they replied defiantly.
Stung by the insolent reply,  Pilate retorted,  "Very well,  then,  take him out of this court and judge him according to your own law."
"That is not possible according to your law,"  said the Jews.  "We are not allowed to put anyone to death."

Note: -  the date for the withdrawal of  the right of  capital punishment from the Sanhedrin of 30 A.D.  need not be considered precise,  since the  "Jus gladii"  may have been suspended when Judea became a Roman province rather than first under Pilate's administration.  Nevertheless,  a literal reading of  the sources would indeed point to 30 A.D.,  which would indicate that Pilate himself  had been the one to remove this right from the Jews.

A trace of  a smile warped Pilate's lips.
Were it not for the mass of  observers and his own problems in Rome,  he would have ended the hearing then and there!  Again he asked,  "What charge do you bring against this man?"

This time several of  the chief priests prepared to act as the principal  "accusatores"  or prosecutors.
They presented a formal bill of  indictment that opened the case against Jesus:

It was a triple accusation,  magnificently tailored to alarm a Roman prefect,  since the charges were thoroughly political.  Of  the religious grounds on which the Sanhedrin had condemned Jesus there was not a word,  since
the Judean authorities knew that Pilate would not likely put a man to death for the purely theological offense of blasphemy.

He answered him not one word

When the prosecution rested its case,  Pilate turned again to Jesus,  who had remained silent the whole time,  and asked,  "Have you NOTHING to say in your defense?  Don't you hear all this evidence against you?"
But Jesus remained silent.  He supplied no defense,  not even to a single charge.
Pilate was astonished at this conduct.  In his 7 years on the provincial bench,  this had never happened.
Innocent defendants at his bar usually could hardly wait to launch their counterattacks on the prosecution,  and even the obviously guilty at least pleaded some mitigating circumstance and sought leniency.
But Jesus was making no defense.
And no advocate was pleading in his behalf.

Isaiah 53:7
He was oppressed and He was afflicted,
Yet He opened not His mouth;
He was led as a lamb to the slaughter,
And as a sheep before its shearers is silent,
So He opened not His mouth.       (NKJV)

He sent Him to Herod

This was Herod Antipas, Tetrarch of Galilee,  and son of  Herod the Great.

It may have gone something like this:

Pilate then announced officially:

Pilate stood up from his curule chair,  walked off the dais,  and entered his palace with a sense of victory.
He was enormously pleased with himself.  The change of  venue rid him of a sticky case involving a probably innocent man whom it would have been wrong to convict,  and yet dangerous to acquit,  in view of the Sanhedrin's
attitude.  It was also a bit of diplomacy toward Herod Antipas,  who could not fail to recognize this as an olive branch in their perennial feud.

A gorgeous robe

The word is  "lampran,"  literally  "bright"  or  "brilliant."
It was most likely a white robe.

And now,  as Jesus stood once more before the perplexed Governor,  began the sixth,  the last,  the most agitating and agonizing phase of  this terrible inquisition.

Now came the golden opportunity for him to vindicate the grandeur of his country's imperial justice,  but at that point he wavered and temporized.  The dread of another insurrection haunted him like a nightmare.  After a full and fair inquiry he had found their prisoner absolutely guiltless;  he had sent Him to Herod;  and HEROD ALSO had come to the conclusion that Jesus had committed no crime that deserved death.  But he was willing to go halfway - he would have Jesus publicly scourged,  and then let Him go.

The governor was accustomed...to release a prisoner

It is not known whether the custom here mentioned was of  Jewish or of  Gentile origin.
According to the Jewish scholar Maimonides,  the Jews were in the habit of  punishing criminals at the three great feasts,  because there would then be a great multitude of the people to witness the punishment than at other times.
If the custom were of  Gentile origin,  as many suppose,  it is then a question whether it was a Syrian or a Roman custom.
Grotius supposed that the Romans introduced it in order to gain the good will of the Jews.
There is,  however,  no historic mention of the practice aside from what we find in the Gospels.

Barabbas

Bar-Abbas - "son of a  (possibly distinguished) father;"  perhaps Bar-Rabban - "son of a rabbi."
The reading  "Jesus Bar-Abbas"  is as old as Origen,  and is highly possible.

"Whom do you want me to release?"  Pilate asked,  "Jesus Bar-Abbas  or  Jesus of  Nazareth?"

Momentarily,  the throng seemed to hold its breath.
Against the controversial Jesus he had pitted one who was guilty beyond all controversy,  a notorious public enemy. Pilate had calculated that the present hatred of Jesus would be far outbalanced by public dread at having a murdering insurrectionist turned loose in Jerusalem.  Also,  the people would never want to forego the Bar-Abbas show trial.

A great,  almost unified cry arose,  "BAR-ABBAS!  BAR-ABBAS!"
And the crowd took up the name of the public enemy as a near war chant.

Loathing the innocent,  they loved the guilty,  and claimed the procurator's grace on behalf,  not of  Jesus of 
Nazareth,  but of  a man who,  in the fearful irony of circumstance,  was also called Jesus - who not only WAS what they FALSELY said of Christ,  but also a robber and a murderer.

It was fitting that,

Jesus answered

The Gospel of John records three major conversations held between Jesus and an individual person who was being confronted with the truth and the claims of the gospel.

The greater sin

The sin of the Jewish leaders was greater than the sin of Pilate because, at the very least,

they knew He was from God!

When Nicodemus came to Jesus in the night, he said  (John 3:2): "Rabbi,

we know that You are a teacher come from God;

for no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with him."

Pilate sought to release Him

In all fairness to Pilate, it must be noticed that he was the only one in all of  Jerusalem that spoke in defense of  Jesus, and the only one who made any effort at all to release Him.

Where were the 12?
Where were the 70?
Where were the women who wept in gratitude as they washed His feet?
Where was Lazarus whom He had raised from the dead?
Where was Mary and Martha, two of His closest friends?
Where was Nicodemus?
Where were all those who had been healed, both physically and spiritually?
Where were those who had pledged their undying faith and allegiance to Him?

It was Pilate alone who called Him Innocent!
It was Pilate alone who called Him King!

A purple robe

Both of them followed the custom of their own country,  when,  by way of mocking Jesus as a king,  they clothed Him in robes of state.

Matt 27:24

He took water, and washed his hands

It was a custom among the Hebrews,  Greeks,  and Latins,  to wash the hands in token of innocence,  and to show that they were pure from any imputed guilt.  In case of an undiscovered murder,  the elders of  that city which was nearest to the place where the dead body was found,  were required by the law,  Deut 21:1-10,  to wash their hands over the victim which was offered to expiate the crime,  and thus make public protestation of their own innocence.  David says,  "I will wash my hands in innocence; so I will go about Your altar, O LORD"  Psalm 26:6.
(from Adam Clarke's Commentary, Electronic Database. Copyright (c) 1996 by Biblesoft)

However, we are all guilty of  the blood of Jesus,
and only the blood of  Jesus can wash away that guilt!

Scourged

It was customary among the Romans to scourge a condemned criminal before he was put to death.
Scourging among the Romans was a more severe punishment than among the Jews.

The Roman scourge was made of cords or thongs of leather,  and especially of ox-hide.
There was one sort with which slaves were beaten,  the use of which was particularly dreadful.  It was knotted with bones,  or heavy,  indented circles of bronze.  Sometimes the thongs,  two or three in number,  terminated in hooks. Such an instrument of  torture was called "a scorpion."

There was no legal limit to the number of blows,  as among the Jews;  but the unfortunate culprit,  bound to a low pillar,  so that his back was bent and might more readily receive the heavy strokes,  was beaten with merciless
severity,  and death was sometimes the result of this cruel punishment.

Isaiah 53:5
But He was wounded for our transgressions,
He was bruised for our iniquities;
The chastisement for our peace was upon Him,
And by His stripes we are healed.       (NKJV)

1 Peter 2:25
Who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree, that we, having died to sins,  might live for righteousness -- by whose stripes you were healed.      (NKJV)

Caesar's Friend

Pilate had received,  probably before ever coming to Judea,  a gift from Tiberius himself - it was a gold ring
engraved with the image of  Tiberius,  signifying that Pilate was now welcomed into the inner circle of  "amici
Caesaris"  or  Caesar's Friends,  an elite fraternity open only to senators and equestrians high in imperial service.

Charges Brought Against Jesus

Reason For Sentence  Of Death By The Jews

Charges Brought Against Jesus Before Pilate

The first two were totally untrue,  and the third was a half/truth.
Jesus Himself said,  in answer to all three:  "My kingdom is not of this world."  (John 18:36)

Judgments In Favor Of Jesus By Pilate